From: Michael Stutz <stutz@dsl.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 10:16:11 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Syn-l: Re: White House Or Red Roof Inn? (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980108200434.5904m-100000@devel.nacs.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



[This message originally appeared on the synergetics-l at
<http://www.inetarena.com/~pdx4d/Synergetics-L/synl.html>, a list
for the discussion of R. Buckminster Fuller's magnum opus.] 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 00:38:22 GMT
From: Kirby Urner <pdx4d@teleport.com>
Reply-To: synergetics-l@teleport.com
To: synergetics-l@teleport.com
Subject: Syn-l: Re: White House Or Red Roof Inn?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.org.fbi,alt.politics.org.cia

softwar@us.net (softwar@us.net) wrote:

>friends inside the White House.  Barth claimed the British were
>already selling encrypted radios to China and his new boss,
>Motorola, deserved a "level playing field".  In fact, according
>to Barth, the National Security Agency (NSA) agreed with
>Motorola's request for export.
>

I want to be clear on your position: you are apparently against
administration efforts to frustrate domestic access to strong 
encryption.  This makes sense, since that would just put the 
domestic population behind the rest of the world, which has 
access to same through other channels.

But are you saying companies like Motorola should not sell 
encrypted radio or television to clients not classified as 
"domestic"?  Or is it just some clients (e.g. the Chinese) 
but not others that you're saying Motorola should turn away.  

Sounds to me like you're picking on the Chinese because 
they're an easy target, after all the brouhaha about where 
the DNC has been getting its money (are you so sure the 
British have never helped put their preferred candidate in 
power through banking channels?  Is this really a new game?
I think not -- USAers just aren't used to having the Asians 
playing it, but in retrospect you have to wonder what took 
them so long).

My view is that we're fast coming to (already well passed?)
the point where we're going to have to regard lethal-against
-humans applications of high technology as uniformly negative 
wherever they occur -- exceptions will be few and far between.

Big money is seeing a secure path into the future, but not 
if high explosives are factored in as wild cards -- like 
you're trying to plan the motherboard of a computer and some 
politician comes in and says "by the way, every now and then 
we plan to blow a whole section of circuitry sky high, 
maybe explode a chip or two -- think you can handle that?"  
The Intel engineers I know would all shake their heads and 
think this guy must be missing more than a few screws.  

Computers need it cold. The temperature needs to keep dropping,
down, down, down -- to way below what jingoists and knee-jerk 
patriots of all stripes and coloration find comfortable, but 
which delicate high technology absolutely must have to operate 
with any integrity.  Motherboard Earth is not some Hollywood
movie set, where misguided Rambos can run amuk at will. Save
that stuff for the video parlor or the schoolyard, where 
it's safe to indulge in less than grown-up behavior.

If the Qualcomm kid was even inadvertently feeding data to 
GIS systems bound for the "brains" of Tomahawk cruise missles 
aimed at "external" (non-domestic) targets in another 
hemisphere, then Qualcomm is liable to go down in history as 
a felonious player, a villain.  One just can't afford to 
misrepresent one's true intentions so blatantly and expect 
to survive as trusted player.

Using GIS and GPS to make flying safer is a positive civilian
use of the technology, but if those planes are carrying 
weapons of mass destruction (armed and dangerous), then 
we're certainly going to follow the chain of command right 
to the top and find out exactly what logic is driving this 
design decision -- like why are you wearing a gun coming 
into a crowded civilian restaurant Mr. CEO President?  

People who want to flaunt terrifying weaponry had better 
come clean under interrogation, or own up to a "terrorist" 
charge -- applied without regard for skin color, creed, or 
place of origin.

The econosphere has become very sophisticated and techno-
logical, all the more delicate and sensitive as a result
of the human presence.  We could have a pretty good world 
here in fact, if we're willing to treat it with the respect 
owing any high precision instrument. People who plan to 
simply barrel ahead with lethal weapons planning, come 
what may, need to provide some iron clad logic for this 
course or their trackers and backers simply will kiss 
them good buy (and good riddance) for failing to offer 
any credible scenarios worth funding.  Big ticket 
weaponry just doesn't have that same sex appeal anymore, 
has "boondoggle" written on it even before they get off 
the drawing board. Like "who's gonna pay for this shit?"
is the first question smart money asks.

Best to not hide behind "national security" shields as in 
the past at this point, is what I advise the corporate 
R&D divisioins -- because now you know that security 
chiefs don't necessarily buy the company hype anymore.  
You better have it in writing where you got your orders, 
if you want to plead "not guilty" and pass the buck on 
up the line.

So if you want to play profitable commerical games in the 
civilian sector, don't be so sure your weaponry subsidiaries 
will escape scrutiny, and don't count on preferential 
enforcement of statutes to protect your namebrand from 
being utterly trashed if you turn out to be defrauding 
the very people you make such a noise about wanting to 
protect.  The people are waking up, some of them, and 
are finding out they don't like what's been taking place 
in their name.

Kirby

---------------------------------------------------------
Kirby T. Urner  http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/kirby.html
4D Solutions    http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/  [PGP OK]
---------------------------------------------------------